I love your videos, but I am busy, so only get a chance to watch once in a blue moon. Right now, I catch up with your latest videos. I write because I found an error in your errata:
In high-mass stars which can use to the iron, because binding energy decreases, these stars cannot get energy from fusion to higher elements. This does not meant that fusion past iron stops. The heat and pressure can cause iron to fuse, but this absorbs energy, thus accelerating the march to core-collapse.
Another process of creating elements beyond iron is the S-Process:
Fusion still occurring elsewhere is a messy process. For ever about 2 nucleons added to a nucleus, about 1 nucleon gets kicked out. Because neutrons have no charge, they have no trouble penetrating heavy nuclei. S means Slow. The S-Process can build up to Bismuth 209. If one adds a neuron to Bismuth 209, it kicks out an alpha-particle.
Core-collapse creates a flood of neutrons which can rapidly add neutrons to heavy elements faster than the nuclei kick out nucleons and alpha-particles. This can build elements beyond bismuth. This is called the R-Process. R stands for rapid.
Both the R-Process and the S-Process involve neutrons and create elements beyond iron, but the S-Process does not require core-collapse. Only the R-Process can create elements beyond bismuth.
i'm glad i stumbled across your video! i've been watching your videos all day and every one that i've seen so far i've rated thumbs-up... GREAT JOB!
i was amazed to see you speak portuguese and i am in great hopes that you may be able to help me. i am married to a brasileira who does not speak english (at all), i have been desperately searching for GOOD science videos in portuguese. do you have, or can you point me to where i may find some? THANKS! Dean
! i'ma glad i stumbled across your video! i've been watching your videos all day and every one that i've seen so far i've rated thumbs-up... GREAT JOB!
i was amazed to see you speak portuguese and i am in great hopes that you may be able to help me. i am married to a brasileira who does not speak english (at all), i have been desperately searching for GOOD science videos in portuguese. do you have, or can you point me to where i may find some? THANKS! Dean
WOW! i'ma glad i stumbled across your video! i've been watching your videos all day and every one that i've seen so far i've rated thumbs-up... GREAT JOB!
i was amazed to see you speak portuguese and i am in great hopes that you may be able to help me. i am married to a brasileira who does not speak english (at all), i have been desperately searching for GOOD science videos in portuguese. do you have, or can you point me to where i may find some? THANKS! dean
Gratz on being able to acknowledge and correct past mistakes. This self-correcting method is what science is built on, and something creationists just don't understand.
5 stars. Not for the content but for living up to the ideals of science. The term skeptic has fallen into disrepute lately beacuse way to many "skeptics" fail to practise self-skepticisim.
It's a misconception that prior to the big bang there was infinite, eternal, empty space, into which the universe expanded.
This view is wrong: both Time and Space started with the BB. Space was a single point which expanded rapidly to the size of marble, then the size of a soccer ball and so on ever bigger.
The single point where the universe started has now expanded to occupy the whole universe. So the origin of the BB is everywhere!
Wow, you like to ask some challenging questions! Keep it up!
The problem is that wherever you are in the universe, it will always look as if the universe is expanding away from your current position. So if you wind back, it will always look as if everything is converging on YOU - where ever you happen to be. Space shrinks as we wind back so all matter converges on a tiny point which is the entire universe.
"wherever you are in the universe, it will always look as if the universe is expanding away"
that doesn't make sense, unless you have a reason that I am unaware of. You must mean that we can only determine the speed that a galaxy is traveling directly away from us. Because there must be galaxies that have trajectories that are closer to being parallel, or closer to being perpendicular, to our own... If we are moving east, there are some that are moving north, south, northeast, etc...
Here's a thought experiment for you: half inflate a balloon, then use a marker to put some dots on the surface. Now inflate it more. Imagine yourself on one of the dots - every other dot seems to move away from you as you inflate the balloon. Choose another dot, same thing.
No matter which dot you choose, all the other dots move away from you. So it is with the universe and galaxies.
you mean that every one of the other dots is getting farther away, but their actual trajectories are not relative to your dot, they are relative to the center of the balloon. the nearby dots have very similar (parallel) trajectories to your dot, the dot's 90 degrees away have relatively perpendicular trajectories, and the dots on the other side have relatively negative trajectories. you must mean that we can only detect motion that is away from us, so these actual trajectories remain unknown.
this seems to be the case the more I think about it. but would this mean that we can guess that the faster another galaxy appears to be moving away from us, the larger the angle between us and them? if there is little to no speed, then they are nearly on the same trajectory, but the fastest galaxies are more likely 180 degrees away. everything else is somewhere in between. once you have estimated every galaxies relative angle, you should be able to have a variable model that includes an origin.
"you should be able to have a variable model that includes an origin."
I used to think that, and it was long long time before I realised that it wouldn't work. Because we can only see a small part of the universe, the origin would always end up in a region of space "close" to us. Meanwhile, observers in other parts of the universe will conclude that the origin is near their position. Once again, we conclude that the universe doesn't really have a centre or origin.
Almost. You know where the centre of the balloon is, but we can't tell where the centre of the universe is - indeed, it's possible it doesn't have a centre.
Where ever you are, everything seems to move away from you as the universe expands, so it feels like you personally are the centre of everything.
However, aliens on the far side of the universe will make the same measurements and see everything is moving away from them.
We resolve this by concluding that every location appears to be the centre of the universe ... or... the universe doesn't really have a centre.
So back to your original question, there is no way of knowing where was the original location of the big bang, and if we try to wind back the movement of the galaxies, we don't get a sensible answer for where everything started.
onemarktwoyou, I'm doubting you even know what the "c" stands for, otherwise you wouldn't be referring to it as ""c"", but the speed of light or something.
My guess is you probably read something somewhere, didn't understand any of it, yet somehow thought it disproved the Big Bang theory. Or, yes, a creationist website.
But please, educate us on what is wrong with "c" so mankind will finally know the truth!
nice video, simple stated so all can understand what you have said. the singularity, is only a guess, or grasping at straws. the big bang theory is the most likely and reasonible theory we have to date. the singularity, is now the "holy grail" for atheists, we don't know what happened before, durning, or right after the big bang. we do need a better understanding of what was there before the bang, then maybe we can have a model that works. "answers are easy, asking the right questions is hard"
The idea that there was a singularity is not "a guess" or "grasping at straws". It's a hypothesis that's backed up by observations, experiments and some serious mathematical efforts.
Define "right after". We have a pretty good idea of what happened 300000 years after it and taking into account that the universe is estimated to be something like 13.5 *billion* years old, that's pretty close to "right after".
Also, you assume there was a "before". That's not at all certain.
the singularity is a guess, theres no math to prove it. and the "before" is the reason they came up with this idea. they had to admit there must have been something there "before" all of this had happen. thus the idea of the singularity was born causing the so called beginning. and all of the math they show is not science, its does not even prove their theory because the math fails until 300,000 years after. which explains that the theory is wrong. and much more than 500 charters will hold
Actually, "the math" lets us look as far back as a millionth of a second after the start of the expansion. It's harder to deduce evidence about how things were at that time but "the math" works without a problem.
The Big Bang theory addresses "how things were before the expansion" and NOT "how things were before there was something that could expand". It's the latter "before" that doesn't have to exist.
Just because *you* don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.
the math does not. don't even try to pretend you know! no one knows! the "math" is flawed, and the race has been on to find something that works. and if you are so smart then tell me why "c" is a problem with all the theories? or admit you don't know what you are stating.
As with much science, no one "knows" things, but the models fit the observations very well and we can do predictions to help us understand more. Your idea about what science actually IS seems broken.
You have to actually *state* the problem "with c" (which in itself sounds just weird) for me to be able to respond.
The mathematical models used to describe the seconds after the Big Bang still don't result in anything that's not consistent with our observations.
weird? first of all "c " is the problem with the theories. if you under stand what is meant by that constant. and the only thing that they agree on is expansion, and the math does not hold up. thats why there is so many theories. and the observations even argue with each other because they are not correctly applied, or an understanding of what the data means. the theories state matter was created, we can't prove it wasn't there to begin with. the models fit like round peg in a square hole.
Again you're just saying there IS a problem "with c" not WHAT the problem is. How am I supposed to be able to answer unless you actually tell me what the problem is? That "c" often is used as the speed of light in equations adds nothing to the WHAT part.
As far as I have been able to understand, the creation of hydrogen atoms from subatomic particles is pretty well understood so the model works pretty well. It sounds more like you're just repeating something you read on a creationist web page.
onemarktwoyou, you are right that we have no conclusive proof of a singularity. However your assumption that the math fails until 300,000 years after is incorrect. The math does not start to work until one Planck time constant after, and this is because our formulation of the natural laws of physics is at this stage not yet complete.
String theory is attempting to unify the various laws of physics into a single equation and should explain the full range of time as well as what time really is.
300,000 was the others guys but i ran with it for less of a debate. the truth is i can't find what the latest idea is. as well i think the string theory will die, its just a patch for bad observations and poor data usage. one day man may know enough to prove what created the heavens. and that will be a sad day, then we may stop "looking up." until then we will have to put up with "observational error" that scientist forget about to prove their theories.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You were also wrong to refer to other humans' deeply held religious beliefs as "myths and fairy tales." I won't hold my breath for a correction or apology...
Once you're done with feeding your ignorance, I suggest you go look up the definition of the word 'myth'. You'll find it to quite well coincide with the definition of religious beliefs.
So yeah, it's not wrong and therefore no apology is necessary.
1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
That is such an obscure song from the late 80s in Brazil (I am a brazilian musician) from a very short lived "movement" called "lambada", all songs sounded so much the same, very poor lyrics and always the sane instrumentation.
Thank God it was a short lived thing.
Hey, maybe THAT is the definitive prove of GOD.
Nah, think not. We still have hip-hop around, lol....
I am sure you are, of all things, most afraid of Exu! Hahahaha.
So, you've spent some time in Bahia. Awesome place. Far from my city, São Paulo but I was there for the 2000 new-years eve. But I think even the "Bahianos" aren't proud of Lambada anymore, lol.
Dear potholer54, I just wanna add your videos are amazing, muito obrigado!
I was thinking os translating some of them and from other Ytubers from the same species and put it all in one channel...
=I am sure you are, of all things, most afraid of Exu!=
I was baptised into candomble by a mae-dos-santos, so theoretically I should be (it was for a story, BTW.) Re the translations, we have a couple of guys working on the Portuguese version, and you'll find some of them in the Translations playlist. Um abraco.
@potholer54 WOW! i'ma glad i stumbled across your video! i've been watching your videos all day and every one that i've seen so far i've rated thumbs-up... GREAT JOB!
i was amazed to see you speak portuguese and i am in great hopes that you may be able to help me. i am married to a brasileira who does not speak english (at all), i have been desperately searching for GOOD science videos in portuguese. do you have, or can you point me to where i may find some? THANKS! dean
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
do you realise the speed of light is not a constant that can be relied upon to from your theories/calculations.? ejections from what people term black holes are now travelling several times (authadoxed) light speed. scientists seem to question the truth, instead of knowing it. all you need to do to answere the god question is close your eyes and accept urself as the all mighty!
i love explanations, but i love COMPLETE explanations! not partialy coherent jokes!
That raises his integrity as a scientific minded person.
Unfortunately he is a rare individual. There are many people in the scientific profession, their integrity have been somewhat or wholly damaged by the revelations in recent years that they pandered to the Global Warming bandwagon led by politicians and lobbyists. People's respect for scientists as seekers of real knowledge can be dented when they are exposed as having herd instinct and bandwagon hangers on.
ah, minor errors - i did pay notice to these, but they are miniscule at best, considering the series is indeed named 'made easy' i think it only fair that a few tiny flaws persist :)
The "Origins of Life" video is a fascinating "explaination" of a truly astonishing array of micro-functions, processes and chemical interactions, inargueably at the critical foundations of all life as we know it. Yet these ostensibly happen in the natural world, (the possibility of design being arrogantly ridiculed at every opportunity), so "explaining and understanding" this miracle of life, especially leaping from non-living substances, is child's play, (that ever troubling JTWII, yet again).
Since when do you have to be arrogant to ridicule intelligent design? Am i arrogant to say Santa Claus won't buy me a $3000 computer for Christmas? 'Cause i don't really think he will.
"... Since when do you have to be arrogant to ridicule intelligent design? Am i arrogant to say Santa Claus won't buy me a $3000 computer for Christmas? 'Cause i don't really think he will..."
Am I claiming that these critical forces/properties, (without which, nothing works, nothing exists), are the result of the hand of God, in plain sight, yet unrecognized? Of course not. That would be irresponsible and foolish. But wouldn't it be equally foolish to make other outlandish claims - like the proclomation, (with heaping loads of condescention), that it could NOT possibly be evidence of design - especially when "expert" juries have absolutely no evidence to present other than, "JTWII"?
100 years ago, those "explaining" how grass grows would suffice to say that soil, water and sunlight was the extent of understanding - because look! Here's the evidence! It works, just as claimed!
We both now know that this is absurd - ommitting pesky details like cell reproduction and photosynthesis. Today, our universe is "explained" by ignoring the finer points - like gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. Don't get me started on dark matter, dark energy or the quantum realm.
It's true that we don't really know how the unvierse works. Anyone who actually claims as much IS arrogant. Unfortunately, people who believe in Intelligent Design are the same people who, despite advances in technology, STILL seem to be stuck on your "grass grows" example. Just replace "grass grows" with "god did it"
Indeed, it is presumptuous to pretend that critical, unexplained properties and forces that permeate and dictate all the natural world are the result of the hand of God - not terribly different from those that claim there is no way they could be God's handiwork - when they have not a clue as to their reality.
I find myself repeatedly reminding folks that to demonstrate predictability in a widespread process, behavior or property is light years away from understanding.
It is different because when it comes to things such as this video which postulate how it could have happened, there is actual logical reasoning behind it. It's possible... far more so then some magical figure that's never been proven being thrown onto the issue just so pitiful minds can have an automatic fix for this problem.
Pretenses of understanding anything by dismissing critical matters as meaningless happenstance is contrary to sound science - but it happens all the time - when possibilities are ridiculed as magic tricks by some invisible man in the clouds. In our life's journies, clarity at that cost isn't conducive to a realistic search for truth. Interesting that modern science cannot explain myriad, critical forces and properties woven into the natural world - yet amazingly, claim to know what they are not.
Once can look at simple probability and easily assume that a moral, intelligent perfect benevolent omni-god that created the universe, life, set out rules of morality and really frigging loves us, yet refuses to intercede for reasons unknown, is NOT VERY LIKELY. It's that simple. It's like saying What's in room 2? Oh, it must be the flying spaghetti monster, let him touch you with his noodly appendages! This argument is a joke.
Besides, Science doesn't claim to know anything about creation.
The fundamentals that science cannot explain aren't really relevant, because at least they are trying to make progress, religion just makes assumptions that haven't changed for essentially 2000 years. I never said Science proclaimed God is non-existent, I'm not in the habit of making assumptions like the religious. But I did give you an example of the probability...so small as to be laughable.
A leap of faith to not-believe in santa claus, indeed.
The countless, critical properties and behaviors that permeate microbiology, chemistry, cell formation, structure and replication that are crucial to all life everywhere, unexplained - yet the driving engine, irrelevant? As in taken for granted? Kind of like gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces that dictate all matters of physics and cosmology - unexplained yet also irrelevant? Remember, I make no claims whatsoever. But you do - although you - nor anyone else, knows.
Blah, I was saying that just because they ARE unexplained is irrelevant to this discussion. Not that they are totally unexplained anyway, that's an exaggeration. And, what claims have I apparantly made? I don't remember making any claims. You keep putting words in my mouth.
Irrelevant to this discussion? It is, in fact, the central crux of the discussion - and my focal point from the beginning - long before you chimed in. The record is clear. And you do, indeed, make repeated claims - to know what these critical properties are not, even though you can't explain them. Exaggeration? Hardly. Ask any physicist about the measuement dilemma. Ask any biochemist about the behavior of polynucleotides. Remember, gravity is but a theory.
I see you haven't quoted where I said that... too bad for you, until you do then you're just making shit up, because i didn't say it. It is irrelevant to the discussion because what science doesn't know isn't relevant to the existence of God... no one will deny science doesn't know everything. I'm not going to bother replying again after this, this is going no where.
Yeah, I'm used to that. Garden variety 'experts' that fancy themselves as 'holders of esoteric truths and special insights' - getting in over their heads when the brass tacks make their appearance.
Claiming what it isn't - when you don't know what it is - brilliant.
You've tried to make this discussion about empirical proof of God - which it is not, and never was.
With a record so clear, I don't get how you can pepeatedly miss the point.
Quote #1: "It's possible... far more so then some magical figure that's never been proven being thrown onto the issue just so pitiful minds can have an automatic fix for this problem."
Quote #2: "...simple probability and easily assume that a moral, intelligent perfect benevolent omni-god that created the universe, life, set out rules of morality and really frigging loves us, yet refuses to intercede for reasons unknown, is NOT VERY LIKELY"
Quote #3: "it must be the flying spaghetti monster"
None of those quotes claim that God doesn't exist. They just ridicule the absurd improbability of a deities existence. There is a difference. Which is exactly what i was saying... no where have i actually claimed gods non-existence, merely called upon the absurdity of believing he DOES exist. Perhaps you are right that I got sidetracked from the original issue, though.
Am I claiming that the unexplained forces, properties and behaviors that dictate everything in the natural world are by the hand of God? Of course not. Without genuinely understanding them, that would be absurd.
Nearly as absurd as to proclaim that these critical aspects of all existence, matter and life as we know it aren't possibly as a result of design - when proving that kind of negative is, in fact, impossible.
Given the realities - I think it would be equally ridiculous to dismiss the possibilites. Especially given the significance, the central role that these elusive forces play in all that is - in all places - for all time.
With the best minds of humans fully engulfed yet utterly clueless, dedicating their careers to these matters - I'd entertain any sensible postulation, except what they are not.
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
I put little faith in authority figures. If you want to believe in fairy tales for a substitute just because science can't figure out the real truth, i guess that is your right.
In summary, I make a conscious decision to not slam doors of possibility during my life's journey, especially regarding matters that I cannot explain - nor can a single other person on the planet. Unexplained realms - potentially all around us - that science is not able to weigh, count and measure is far from proof that they don't exist. I can thnk of no scientist to ever make that claim - and I certainly wouldn't as long as my credibility is of value.
Yes, we know - the building but not the bricks or the mortar. Yet the video implies that we, (actually he, the narrator in particular and science in general), understands much more - by taking for granted the properties, (bricks), and forces, (the mortar), as a given. Such is necessary in all exercizes of over-simplification.
I don't write scripts, especially about matters of such immense breadth, I would avoid heaping loads of blase' disdain for that which is virtually unknown and unexplained
I think that a new term should be introduced into the "Made Easy" video series to describe these foundational, critical, yet recurring phenomenon, (as pesky as they are), and the acronym shall be: JTWII, (just the way it is). Fairly synonymous to my bold proclaimation that my explaination of the function of an electric induction motor is all-encompassing, exhaustive and thorough, yet don't pester me about that properties of electricty thing. The star of the show, yet uncredited. It's JTWII.
In "Origins of Life Made Easy", to wit "the DNA does the job on it's own". And "the nucleotides form quite happily on their own". Or, "left alone, the solution produced atonine". "And they combine to form polynucleotide chains". The video is littered with assumptions that are, (wait for it), taken for granted. That pesky, "just the way it is" thing. Implying that "it isn't magic, ignorant one, simply because it's mysterious", perfectly normal, just don't ask for details or genuine explaintions
Our understanding of both gravity and electromagnetism, (among other forces), is through observation of it's effects, which is an immense leap from grasping the nature or even causes of these powerful and invisible forces that are necessary for all things to exist above the quantum realm.
As I have said, the matter quickly becomes philosophical, yet many want to simplify the fundamentals of creation all around us by implying through omission that it's all completely understood, when it is not.
Rod, indeed, the human condition and journey is fraught with unknowables. And the theist hardwiring of the brain is strongly suspected. I'm not a Christian and abhor what organized religion does to the broader concept of myriad possibilities. And I make a conscious choice not to dismiss those possibilities. Upon very close examination, and pondering over the finer details of nature/creation, it's difficult for me to take it for granted as "just the way things are". I can, but don't.
Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean there's a purpose to it or that it's magic. One hypothesis is that the physical constants (speed of light, gravitational constant etc.) have one value in this universe and possibly other values in other universes, if at the Big Bang, according to 'multiverse quantum theory' (AFAIK), universes 'froze' in those states, all over the entire spectrum of possible states. I might be wrong though.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The myserious yet critical properties of matter and forces, necessarily dismissed, even taken for granted as "just the way things are", permeates the entire discipline of scientific "explaination". Flippant descriptions such as "magic" is to sidestep, even to disdain the deeper, fundamental realities that hide in plain sight, everywhere. I personally choose to ponder the possibility that these 'magical' and key aspects of nature might be more than mere accidental or meaningless.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Rod, I think "why" is, indeed, fundamental to the scientific quest for understanding and knowledge. "Why" needs not lead to a purpose at all - but it certainly could, philosophically speaking. Dismissing, (as a matter of necessity), an immense arena of properties and realities, (when these very properties and realities are critical aspects in everything, everywhere), as "just the way things are" is to take for granted what very well may be most profound, and simply falls short in my thinking.
It's very human to wonder why. The human brain is hardwired to look for patterns and "meaning".
As a non-theist, I know it is up to me to give meaning and purpose according to my own desires or perspectives.
Looking for causation or the "how" is something more in the realm of science and less in philosophy.
As I tell all theists, if you have evidence of God, RUN to the Nobel Prize committee and submit it. If you win, you'll effectually convince millions. More than here on youtube.
MichaelRMcCoy:"Oh yeah - that's just the "way" it is."
But that is what science does; it just determines the way things work. It's just observations that describe the way things are. Let faith tell you why you are here and the meaning of life. Let science tell you how the world works.
It will be fine until they contradict each other. Then we get issues like evolution vs intelligent design. In time science always wins these debates though. The sun simply dosn't orbit the earth.
ttrn1, I completely agree. Taking the finer, salient points of biology and the fundamental aspects of physics for granted or as an accident seems to work for many. But science taking these aspects for granted is far from revelaing how they work. And that's precisely why science hasn't trumped the possibility of design. Any jury deciding that is working with an incomplete body of evidence
It involves a philosophical commundrum and I choose to not set my mind in concrete with so many unknowables.
"Heavier-than-iron elements are created only in supernovas. Why?"
Because the temperatures and pressures are greater.
"Atoms combine in complex patterns to form various elements, Why?"
Because of the number of protons they possess. The number of protons determines the element. As for your other questions, you'll have to be more specific.
potholer, science hits a brick wall, and fails to explain the properties of matter just as it fails to explain dark matter, dark energy and gravity for that matter, (let's avoid the nuclear forces and electromagnetism.) Accepted mindsets such as "that's the way things are" completely sidestep the hard realites, the miraculous behavior of matter at the elementary level, ostensibly all by accident.
Predicting an event or principle is far from grasping the how and why.
No surprise there. 100 years ago you would have told me science fails to explain earthquakes. 200 years ago it failed to explain chemical reactions. 300 years ago it failed to explain lighting. 400 years ago, rainbows. If our ancestors had given up and said "that's the way things are" we'd do as you do and think these were all incomprehensible miracles. 100 years from now a lot of what you think of as 'miracles' will also be explained.
potholder, our differing views amount to much more than semantics - surely philosophical. Faced with the concept that all things everywhere are a grand accident - that an incomprehensible complexity and array of matter, forces and biological processes all rose from a quark sized particle and are meaningless, random and happenstance is not something I'm willing to accept - without pondering alternate possibilities.
With the jury out, closing my mind like that would be impossible, and arrogant.
"Faced with the concept that all things everywhere are a grand accident"
I'd like you to show me one example of an "accident". Earthquakes? Tides? Planetary collisions? Exploding stars? Are these all accidents? They may have seemed that way to our ancestors, but once you understand the cause then they are no longer accidents but predictable events. Understanding them isn't arrogant, it's liberating, because it allows us to understand nature free of superstition and ignorance.
I'm afraid that you have confused my use of the term "forces" as that of eathquakes, tidal actions and planetary movements et al. There is a fluidity to my prior posts with a clear focus on the esoteric, the unexplained - the fundamental forces and properties that remain unexplained, regardless of how predictable they are. With a series of ever deeper questions of such matters, each physicist, biologist or cosmologist must necessarily proclaim that "that's the way it is", or some such facsimile.
potholder, unexplained "accidents" are to be found in abundance at the quantum level. If you could explain the uncertainty principle or the ultraviolet catastrophe, there are countless physicists that would beat a path to your door. A Nobel Prize awaits you for your explanation of the measurement connundrum, in addition to any salient grasp as to the 'why' or 'how' regarding the nuclear forces, gravity or electromagnetism.
Wait, I know, that's just the way things are and to be taken as gospel.
"If you could explain the uncertainty principle or the ultraviolet catastrophe there...."
150 years ago if I had been able to explain what powered the sun physicists would have beaten a path to my door. Now it's something every 7th-grader learns. You don't seem to understand that science always advances, and that mysteries we don't understand one year are explained the next year by research and quickly become routine exam questions for 14-year-olds.
Hmm... I do believe that a 14 year old actually explaining gravity or electromagnetism would be miraculous, indeed, beyond what is taught as a given from a textbook regurgitating wordplay such as: "that's the way it is", with the fancy use of terms such as "fields", "warpings", and "space-time" would be... well... regurgitations - which is a not too clever disguise for "we don't know why".
When physics can genuinely explain entanglement, gravity or the nuclear forces, I'll pipe down. Not until.
To repeat, we don't know why a lot of things happen. Why stars have the same angular velocity around galaxies, for example. But that doesn't mean we won't find out next year or next decade. We didn't know why rainbows formed and why earthquakes happened, and now we do. The reason we know these things is because scientists weren't prepared to say "God just made it that way" or "that's the way it is." They wanted to find out why it was that way, and they did.
"There is a fluidity to my prior posts with a clear focus on the esoteric, the unexplained - the fundamental forces and properties that remain unexplained"
I'd like to know if you count things like rainbows and earthquakes as "unexplained." 500 years ago both were unexplained. 200 years ago rainbows were explained but earthquakes were unexplained. Now both are explained. You seem to think that things that are "unexplained" remain so for ever, and that is not the case.
I firmly believe that you are aware of my grasp of such things as the optics of rainbows and tectonic forces of earthquakes.
What I don't grasp, is how you are able to seemingly miss my point(s).
My grasp of these events of nature rely on the same perspective as yours, which requires a faith that the fundamental properties and elemental forces that drive such things is a given - of no consequence - an are just the way things are.
"requires a faith that the fundamental properties and elemental forces"
My understanding of why rainbows form doesn't require faith. It requires an understanding of the behaviour of light. 500 years ago no one knew it was due to refraction. 200 years ago refraction was understood, but no one knew why light behaved that way. 100 years ago they understood why light behaved that way, but not why it has these properties. Maybe next year we'll found out why, and then go on to answer more questions.
(First, light requires energy to be expended, not refraction.)
Could you explain the fundamentals of photons, (both a particle and a wave), while avoiding the dreaded, all-encompassing "that's just the way it works" so called "principle"?
Your faith in the Almighty Godscience, (all one word), seems to overwhelm you more than my ponderance or contemplation of a deeper meaning to it all. As I said before, it's philosophical - indeed, quite moot.
To what end? Are you studying for an exam and you want me to tutor you? You want to see if I know anything? You're interested, but can't be bothered to look it up for yourself? What purpose would it serve, exactly?
I didn't think you did. So I could spend half an hour explaining something that you already know. Pointless. I imagine what you want is to get to an aspect of photons that I can't explain, you'll ask how it works and I'll say: "I don't know." So let's skip to that stage now....
...There are a lot of things we don't know. Contrary to what you seem to believe, scientists don't shrug and say "that's just the way it is," give up and abandon research. Science is about finding out why things happen. The same applies to what we don't know about photons. We know more than we did 50 years ago, and our grandchildren will know more than we do. That comes from investigation and discovery....
...So of course we acknowledge that things are the way they are, but that doesn't explain why, and that is the whole point of scientific research. The constant cry I hear from fundamentalists -- and Eric Hovind said this recently about the anomoly of pelvic bones in a whale -- is that "God just made it that way." i.e. shut and accept it, that's just the way it is. This is the antithesis of science.
Exactly. Explaining the fundamental, elementary forces of nature, the properties of matter, thermodynamics and light as predictable and consistent is a far cry from understanding. Taken for granted, the wide assortment of the profound characteristics and behaviors make perfect sense, and lends any explaination seeming, yet faux validation.
"Explaining the fundamental, elementary forces of nature, the properties of matter, thermodynamics and light as predictable and consistent is a far cry from understanding."
I don't disagree that there are a huge number of things we don't yet understand. Why does matter have the property is does? Why is maximum light speed a constant? How do the four forces of the universe relate to each other? You seem to think scientists just shrug off these questions and say "that's just the way it is."....
But, pardon my bluntness, that's nonsense. There are hundreds of research projects investigating why things are the way they are. The only people who give up and say "that's just the way it is" are fundamentalists, whose catch-all explanation is that some mysterious being did it and that's that. Case in point, the late Pope John Paul II told Stephen Hawking it wasn't a good idea to investigate the cause of the Big Bang, because that was the preserve of something called 'god.'
I don't at all think that science shrugs these questions off, at all. Quite the contrary, indeed, with the effort and expense of the LHC for instance.
What I find objectionable, are those that must take the immense array of properties and forces for granted in explaining other processes that rely on these very fundamentals - then claim to have explained it all to the novice. This very act is to take these elementary properties for granted, and is, in fact, a version of "that's the way it is".
"then claim to have explained it all to the novice."
I'm not quite sure who you're referring to here. I've never heard a scientist of any repute say they've "explained it all." Can you cite an example?
Just because scientists use these constants to find out why things act the way they do does not mean they take these constants for granted. An immense amount of research is going into finding out why these constants and forces are what they are, as you know.
Throughout the "Made Easy" video series there runs an unmistakeable tone of scientific piety, a pronounced disdain for the mysterious - because it simply sidesteps anything unexplained. Examples? In Video 2 of the Universe: "I want to explain... physical processes we know and understand". Understand? Pshaw, indeed. Gravity is the star player, yet unaddressed as such. And there's that pesky, "atoms began to form", and "fusion begins" and that's just the way it is. Another example? (continued)...
What we know: The Earth orbits the sun, the sun is part of a galaxy, the galaxy is x million light years across, the galaxies are all flying apart, etc. What we don't know: What gravity is, how it works, why the universe is lighter than it appears, etc. etc. If you can squeeze all this into a 10-minute video, let me see the script.
potholer, you're reaching quite far, grasping for acceptance or validation, seemingly even desperately. And you did not author this series of videos. You know it as do I.
I believe that you have good intentions, but your over-simplistic assessments of the most profound realities facing the human journey are just that. Simplistic. Banal. Far too definitive.
I agree with some assessments that you post, evolution for one and some others.
But with so many unknowns, you represent your cause poorly
antonyneal, am I to assume, based on your silence, that you took the time to actually read the prior postings, grasp the content and the breadth of the latent concepts before mindlessly posting, yet again?
If so, I applaud you. The quest for genuine knowledge and perspective should trump ego, ideally, every time.
The sign of a true intellectual, admitting incorrect information... and then correcting it. Don't see dirty Young Earth Creationists doing that, do you?
Very true. Thats the great thing about science, it's fact, there's no blind faith involved, so changing incorrect infomation isn't a problem, because we have nothing to hide.
Im a young Earth creationist and ive decided to make a correction. The Earth is in fact a week old! I saw god do it last week and it only took him an hour. The reason i know this is cause he made me first. Thing is God was gonna do the whole evolution route and wait billions of years but he couldnt be assed waiting all that time without humans. So he made it all at once and even gave us the memories we would of had if gone the way we think it has. Yip thats why it seems theres been an abstance
ah... so we CAN pinpoint the location of the Big Bang. It is right here in my left shirt pocket. Since, of course, all of incipient space-time was collapsed inside the singularity, the point of origin is smeared throughout all of space-time! It's in my left shirt pocket, uh-oh, even down around my naughty bits.
As for the videos of potholer54: if I need to know about the most important details of the basics of the natural sciences, I can refer to these videos and ponder in deep-zen agreeance to the very ihghly cultivated British accent i hear and can perfectly imitate. LOL 5 stars forever.
I have a deep desire to prowl through potholer's music collection. I'm beginning to think that there is a serious correlation, if not causality, between IQ and musical taste, which, now that I think about the prevalence of country music in the U.S., is beginning to terrify me.
I can't agree or disagre with that. I listen to early music before the 19th centuries, going into the medieval times. Religious or not, the music is very much at home for me. My IQ is either 120 or 130, whih is irrelevant, but perhaps not irrelevant in terms of music selection. Perhaps the selection of music has a correlation with IQ. I do think it has to do with condicioning whether self-imposed or not.I think condicioning is a determining factor in many realms, mental, corporeal ability.
Perhaps it goes like this, which in my right mind can't really be certain of: below 90 it's all country music, upwards, it's techo, even upwards is classical music, even upwards still, it's whatever the likes of potholer54 listes to LOL. Haha see you both!
This underlines the difference between the scientific community and the creationist crowd - scientists have the ability, and even willingness, to admit making mistakes and then correcting them. Potholer, your vids are excellent: entertaining, informative, and clear.
I love your videos, but I am busy, so only get a chance to watch once in a blue moon. Right now, I catch up with your latest videos. I write because I found an error in your errata:
In high-mass stars which can use to the iron, because binding energy decreases, these stars cannot get energy from fusion to higher elements. This does not meant that fusion past iron stops. The heat and pressure can cause iron to fuse, but this absorbs energy, thus accelerating the march to core-collapse.
Walabio 1 week ago
@Walabio:
Another process of creating elements beyond iron is the S-Process:
Fusion still occurring elsewhere is a messy process. For ever about 2 nucleons added to a nucleus, about 1 nucleon gets kicked out. Because neutrons have no charge, they have no trouble penetrating heavy nuclei. S means Slow. The S-Process can build up to Bismuth 209. If one adds a neuron to Bismuth 209, it kicks out an alpha-particle.
Walabio 1 week ago
@Walabio:
Core-collapse creates a flood of neutrons which can rapidly add neutrons to heavy elements faster than the nuclei kick out nucleons and alpha-particles. This can build elements beyond bismuth. This is called the R-Process. R stands for rapid.
Both the R-Process and the S-Process involve neutrons and create elements beyond iron, but the S-Process does not require core-collapse. Only the R-Process can create elements beyond bismuth.
Walabio 1 week ago
at 0:02 "I am happy to correct these."
Were that the religious could do this! So mote it be, amen! (Yes, I wish it could magically happen. Too bad magic isn't real.)
George4943 3 months ago
Creation of the universe? If stars are exploding the universe had to be around for a while.
daddyg321 1 year ago
i'm glad i stumbled across your video! i've been watching your videos all day and every one that i've seen so far i've rated thumbs-up... GREAT JOB!
i was amazed to see you speak portuguese and i am in great hopes that you may be able to help me. i am married to a brasileira who does not speak english (at all), i have been desperately searching for GOOD science videos in portuguese. do you have, or can you point me to where i may find some? THANKS! Dean
nyyght7 1 year ago 2
@nyyght7 - The Made Easy series has been translated into Portuguese. You'll find it on the channel of biscoito1r. Message me if you can't find it.
potholer54 1 year ago
! i'ma glad i stumbled across your video! i've been watching your videos all day and every one that i've seen so far i've rated thumbs-up... GREAT JOB!
i was amazed to see you speak portuguese and i am in great hopes that you may be able to help me. i am married to a brasileira who does not speak english (at all), i have been desperately searching for GOOD science videos in portuguese. do you have, or can you point me to where i may find some? THANKS! Dean
nyyght7 1 year ago
WOW! i'ma glad i stumbled across your video! i've been watching your videos all day and every one that i've seen so far i've rated thumbs-up... GREAT JOB!
i was amazed to see you speak portuguese and i am in great hopes that you may be able to help me. i am married to a brasileira who does not speak english (at all), i have been desperately searching for GOOD science videos in portuguese. do you have, or can you point me to where i may find some? THANKS! dean
nyyght7 1 year ago
This is what science is all about, if wrong then correct it.
Not like some people who have two rules.
Rule nr.1 I'm always right.
Rule nr.2 If I'm wrong then see rule nr.1.
egorn1971 1 year ago
What is the name of this song ?
s3cd 1 year ago
how do we tell if the stars are moving away from us, or if we are moving away from the stars?
NickBlackDIN 1 year ago
Gratz on being able to acknowledge and correct past mistakes. This self-correcting method is what science is built on, and something creationists just don't understand.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
5 stars for making an "errata" video !
phil23777 1 year ago
5 stars. Not for the content but for living up to the ideals of science. The term skeptic has fallen into disrepute lately beacuse way to many "skeptics" fail to practise self-skepticisim.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
I find it interesting that you put a brazilian music in the video =)
TribalPVP 2 years ago
potholer54 makes videos to correct factual inaccuracies in his earlier videos; YouTube Science moves on!
I love it. The humility scientists (and science journalists) show is humbling.
... BAD JOKE.
I myself have been mistaken in comments on various YouTube videos, especially pertaining to the Urey-Miller experiments.
See? Being corrected is a good thing; you learn new things, or to proof-read your statements.
Biblical fan/atics, however, are PRIDEFUL that the Bible doesn't change.
Arcaani 2 years ago
we can't precisely identify the origin point of the big bang? how close is our best approximation?
Sahuagin 2 years ago
@Sahuagin
It's a misconception that prior to the big bang there was infinite, eternal, empty space, into which the universe expanded.
This view is wrong: both Time and Space started with the BB. Space was a single point which expanded rapidly to the size of marble, then the size of a soccer ball and so on ever bigger.
The single point where the universe started has now expanded to occupy the whole universe. So the origin of the BB is everywhere!
mandolinic 2 years ago
ok but if we extrapolate backwards the trajectory of each galaxy, don't we get a common point of origin?
Sahuagin 2 years ago
Wow, you like to ask some challenging questions! Keep it up!
The problem is that wherever you are in the universe, it will always look as if the universe is expanding away from your current position. So if you wind back, it will always look as if everything is converging on YOU - where ever you happen to be. Space shrinks as we wind back so all matter converges on a tiny point which is the entire universe.
mandolinic 2 years ago
"wherever you are in the universe, it will always look as if the universe is expanding away"
that doesn't make sense, unless you have a reason that I am unaware of. You must mean that we can only determine the speed that a galaxy is traveling directly away from us. Because there must be galaxies that have trajectories that are closer to being parallel, or closer to being perpendicular, to our own... If we are moving east, there are some that are moving north, south, northeast, etc...
Sahuagin 2 years ago
Hi Sahuagin
Here's a thought experiment for you: half inflate a balloon, then use a marker to put some dots on the surface. Now inflate it more. Imagine yourself on one of the dots - every other dot seems to move away from you as you inflate the balloon. Choose another dot, same thing.
No matter which dot you choose, all the other dots move away from you. So it is with the universe and galaxies.
mandolinic 2 years ago
you mean that every one of the other dots is getting farther away, but their actual trajectories are not relative to your dot, they are relative to the center of the balloon. the nearby dots have very similar (parallel) trajectories to your dot, the dot's 90 degrees away have relatively perpendicular trajectories, and the dots on the other side have relatively negative trajectories. you must mean that we can only detect motion that is away from us, so these actual trajectories remain unknown.
Sahuagin 2 years ago
this seems to be the case the more I think about it. but would this mean that we can guess that the faster another galaxy appears to be moving away from us, the larger the angle between us and them? if there is little to no speed, then they are nearly on the same trajectory, but the fastest galaxies are more likely 180 degrees away. everything else is somewhere in between. once you have estimated every galaxies relative angle, you should be able to have a variable model that includes an origin.
Sahuagin 2 years ago
"you should be able to have a variable model that includes an origin."
I used to think that, and it was long long time before I realised that it wouldn't work. Because we can only see a small part of the universe, the origin would always end up in a region of space "close" to us. Meanwhile, observers in other parts of the universe will conclude that the origin is near their position. Once again, we conclude that the universe doesn't really have a centre or origin.
mandolinic 2 years ago
Almost. You know where the centre of the balloon is, but we can't tell where the centre of the universe is - indeed, it's possible it doesn't have a centre.
Where ever you are, everything seems to move away from you as the universe expands, so it feels like you personally are the centre of everything.
However, aliens on the far side of the universe will make the same measurements and see everything is moving away from them.
(more)
mandolinic 2 years ago
(continued)
We resolve this by concluding that every location appears to be the centre of the universe ... or... the universe doesn't really have a centre.
So back to your original question, there is no way of knowing where was the original location of the big bang, and if we try to wind back the movement of the galaxies, we don't get a sensible answer for where everything started.
mandolinic 2 years ago
ERRATA? Fair enough but some people must be real picky.
XPLAlN 2 years ago
Onemark, math is flawed? So 2+2= fish?
mynameisdarthtater 2 years ago
Someone make this into a professional documentary...
loldongz9000 2 years ago
All science put aside, for a second, I have to confess..... Ive instantly fallen in love with this song!
820423 2 years ago
onemarktwoyou, I'm doubting you even know what the "c" stands for, otherwise you wouldn't be referring to it as ""c"", but the speed of light or something.
My guess is you probably read something somewhere, didn't understand any of it, yet somehow thought it disproved the Big Bang theory. Or, yes, a creationist website.
But please, educate us on what is wrong with "c" so mankind will finally know the truth!
HeavenlySpoon 2 years ago
nice video, simple stated so all can understand what you have said. the singularity, is only a guess, or grasping at straws. the big bang theory is the most likely and reasonible theory we have to date. the singularity, is now the "holy grail" for atheists, we don't know what happened before, durning, or right after the big bang. we do need a better understanding of what was there before the bang, then maybe we can have a model that works. "answers are easy, asking the right questions is hard"
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
The idea that there was a singularity is not "a guess" or "grasping at straws". It's a hypothesis that's backed up by observations, experiments and some serious mathematical efforts.
Define "right after". We have a pretty good idea of what happened 300000 years after it and taking into account that the universe is estimated to be something like 13.5 *billion* years old, that's pretty close to "right after".
Also, you assume there was a "before". That's not at all certain.
Joorin4711 2 years ago
the singularity is a guess, theres no math to prove it. and the "before" is the reason they came up with this idea. they had to admit there must have been something there "before" all of this had happen. thus the idea of the singularity was born causing the so called beginning. and all of the math they show is not science, its does not even prove their theory because the math fails until 300,000 years after. which explains that the theory is wrong. and much more than 500 charters will hold
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
Actually, "the math" lets us look as far back as a millionth of a second after the start of the expansion. It's harder to deduce evidence about how things were at that time but "the math" works without a problem.
The Big Bang theory addresses "how things were before the expansion" and NOT "how things were before there was something that could expand". It's the latter "before" that doesn't have to exist.
Just because *you* don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.
Joorin4711 2 years ago
the math does not. don't even try to pretend you know! no one knows! the "math" is flawed, and the race has been on to find something that works. and if you are so smart then tell me why "c" is a problem with all the theories? or admit you don't know what you are stating.
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
As with much science, no one "knows" things, but the models fit the observations very well and we can do predictions to help us understand more. Your idea about what science actually IS seems broken.
You have to actually *state* the problem "with c" (which in itself sounds just weird) for me to be able to respond.
The mathematical models used to describe the seconds after the Big Bang still don't result in anything that's not consistent with our observations.
Joorin4711 2 years ago
weird? first of all "c " is the problem with the theories. if you under stand what is meant by that constant. and the only thing that they agree on is expansion, and the math does not hold up. thats why there is so many theories. and the observations even argue with each other because they are not correctly applied, or an understanding of what the data means. the theories state matter was created, we can't prove it wasn't there to begin with. the models fit like round peg in a square hole.
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
Again you're just saying there IS a problem "with c" not WHAT the problem is. How am I supposed to be able to answer unless you actually tell me what the problem is? That "c" often is used as the speed of light in equations adds nothing to the WHAT part.
As far as I have been able to understand, the creation of hydrogen atoms from subatomic particles is pretty well understood so the model works pretty well. It sounds more like you're just repeating something you read on a creationist web page.
Joorin4711 2 years ago
if you knew the theories like you pretend, you'd would know.
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
That's not an argument. That's just you saying "No, you!" in the most kindergarten way there is.
Either explain what it is or point to a resource that does or stop claiming there are problems.
Joorin4711 2 years ago
onemarktwoyou, you are right that we have no conclusive proof of a singularity. However your assumption that the math fails until 300,000 years after is incorrect. The math does not start to work until one Planck time constant after, and this is because our formulation of the natural laws of physics is at this stage not yet complete.
String theory is attempting to unify the various laws of physics into a single equation and should explain the full range of time as well as what time really is.
ravellwolf 2 years ago 3
300,000 was the others guys but i ran with it for less of a debate. the truth is i can't find what the latest idea is. as well i think the string theory will die, its just a patch for bad observations and poor data usage. one day man may know enough to prove what created the heavens. and that will be a sad day, then we may stop "looking up." until then we will have to put up with "observational error" that scientist forget about to prove their theories.
onemarktwoyou 2 years ago
hooray for the M theory!
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
Correction: This is all false anf god made the Earth.
jayfourjay 2 years ago
Do you have any scientific evidence?
TaiFerret 2 years ago
obviously not, it;s religion you ignoramus
jayfourjay 2 years ago
Where can I find the crocoducks awards vid?
Cuythulu 2 years ago
Take a look at KingHeaten's channel.
Chulacker 2 years ago
Pardon,KingHeathen's channel.
Chulacker 2 years ago
Thanks pal
Cuythulu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You were also wrong to refer to other humans' deeply held religious beliefs as "myths and fairy tales." I won't hold my breath for a correction or apology...
marklross2 2 years ago
not wrong. no apology necessary. if you can't handle the truth, no sympathy.
davexunit 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oops Sorry! I did not realize you held no regard for any human other than yourself...good luck with that...
marklross2 2 years ago
Once you're done with feeding your ignorance, I suggest you go look up the definition of the word 'myth'. You'll find it to quite well coincide with the definition of religious beliefs.
So yeah, it's not wrong and therefore no apology is necessary.
Nicoon 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
marklross2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
myth [mith] Show IPA
noun
1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
marklross2 2 years ago
Comment removed
marklross2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
re⋅li⋅gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
marklross2 2 years ago
there is a difference you ass - you fail....
marklross2 2 years ago
Hahahah, that music.
Where the fuck did you get that?
That is such an obscure song from the late 80s in Brazil (I am a brazilian musician) from a very short lived "movement" called "lambada", all songs sounded so much the same, very poor lyrics and always the sane instrumentation.
Thank God it was a short lived thing.
Hey, maybe THAT is the definitive prove of GOD.
Nah, think not. We still have hip-hop around, lol....
SurfingWithTheCowboy 2 years ago 3
=That is such an obscure song from the late 80s in Brazil=
Rapais! Youre obviously not from Salvador, where they would cut you up and feed you to Exu for saying such a terrible thing.
potholer54 2 years ago
Rapaiz!!!! LMFAO!!! Caralho!!! Hahahaha!
I am sure you are, of all things, most afraid of Exu! Hahahaha.
So, you've spent some time in Bahia. Awesome place. Far from my city, São Paulo but I was there for the 2000 new-years eve. But I think even the "Bahianos" aren't proud of Lambada anymore, lol.
Dear potholer54, I just wanna add your videos are amazing, muito obrigado!
I was thinking os translating some of them and from other Ytubers from the same species and put it all in one channel...
SurfingWithTheCowboy 2 years ago 3
=I am sure you are, of all things, most afraid of Exu!=
I was baptised into candomble by a mae-dos-santos, so theoretically I should be (it was for a story, BTW.) Re the translations, we have a couple of guys working on the Portuguese version, and you'll find some of them in the Translations playlist. Um abraco.
potholer54 2 years ago 2
@potholer54 WOW! i'ma glad i stumbled across your video! i've been watching your videos all day and every one that i've seen so far i've rated thumbs-up... GREAT JOB!
i was amazed to see you speak portuguese and i am in great hopes that you may be able to help me. i am married to a brasileira who does not speak english (at all), i have been desperately searching for GOOD science videos in portuguese. do you have, or can you point me to where i may find some? THANKS! dean
nyyght7 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
do you realise the speed of light is not a constant that can be relied upon to from your theories/calculations.? ejections from what people term black holes are now travelling several times (authadoxed) light speed. scientists seem to question the truth, instead of knowing it. all you need to do to answere the god question is close your eyes and accept urself as the all mighty!
i love explanations, but i love COMPLETE explanations! not partialy coherent jokes!
kingdizzydotcom 2 years ago
"ejections from what people term black holes are now travelling several times (authadoxed) light speed."
Are you talking about Hawking radiation? Can you cite where you read or heard about this please?
"i love explanations, but i love COMPLETE explanations! not partialy coherent jokes! "
Yes, but it's hard to fit complete explanations into ten minute videos. :/
AlphaCrucis 2 years ago
Too bad you are the only joke here, a incoherent one at that.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Well, yeah, the exact location of the big bang would be technically, um, everywhere. Just 'everywhere' was a lot smaller back then... right?
Singebuggercat 2 years ago 24
@Singebuggercat haha
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
If anything I think these were simplifications rather than errors.
FeynmanMH42 2 years ago 4
Stellar nucleosynthesis can also produce all the elements up to and including iron, no nova or super-nova required!
dswright71 2 years ago
That's what I thought but I wasn't sure :)
bill18286 2 years ago
Well, i guess explosion was just so much easier for the people to understand... You have backbone!
LapinPete 2 years ago
the honesty here is refreshing...there would be a lot fewer creationists if they were capable of admitting that they had ever been wrong
erikmania 2 years ago 15
u forgot posting the mistakes i pointed
do i have to meet u and explain it again ?
lol , just kidding
amro0od 2 years ago
I remember listening to this song when I was a child. Thanks for posting it. Where are you from, btw, just curious.
jvictorthegreat 2 years ago
Here is a man who fixes his mistakes when people point out their error. So unlike VFX.
hobbitsarecool 3 years ago 47
@hobbitsarecool
That raises his integrity as a scientific minded person.
Unfortunately he is a rare individual. There are many people in the scientific profession, their integrity have been somewhat or wholly damaged by the revelations in recent years that they pandered to the Global Warming bandwagon led by politicians and lobbyists. People's respect for scientists as seekers of real knowledge can be dented when they are exposed as having herd instinct and bandwagon hangers on.
CardinalSinga 11 months ago
ah, minor errors - i did pay notice to these, but they are miniscule at best, considering the series is indeed named 'made easy' i think it only fair that a few tiny flaws persist :)
GronTheMighty 3 years ago 4
The "Origins of Life" video is a fascinating "explaination" of a truly astonishing array of micro-functions, processes and chemical interactions, inargueably at the critical foundations of all life as we know it. Yet these ostensibly happen in the natural world, (the possibility of design being arrogantly ridiculed at every opportunity), so "explaining and understanding" this miracle of life, especially leaping from non-living substances, is child's play, (that ever troubling JTWII, yet again).
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Since when do you have to be arrogant to ridicule intelligent design? Am i arrogant to say Santa Claus won't buy me a $3000 computer for Christmas? 'Cause i don't really think he will.
Vire70 3 years ago
"... Since when do you have to be arrogant to ridicule intelligent design? Am i arrogant to say Santa Claus won't buy me a $3000 computer for Christmas? 'Cause i don't really think he will..."
I'm not sure if your analogy is sound.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Am I claiming that these critical forces/properties, (without which, nothing works, nothing exists), are the result of the hand of God, in plain sight, yet unrecognized? Of course not. That would be irresponsible and foolish. But wouldn't it be equally foolish to make other outlandish claims - like the proclomation, (with heaping loads of condescention), that it could NOT possibly be evidence of design - especially when "expert" juries have absolutely no evidence to present other than, "JTWII"?
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
100 years ago, those "explaining" how grass grows would suffice to say that soil, water and sunlight was the extent of understanding - because look! Here's the evidence! It works, just as claimed!
We both now know that this is absurd - ommitting pesky details like cell reproduction and photosynthesis. Today, our universe is "explained" by ignoring the finer points - like gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. Don't get me started on dark matter, dark energy or the quantum realm.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
It's true that we don't really know how the unvierse works. Anyone who actually claims as much IS arrogant. Unfortunately, people who believe in Intelligent Design are the same people who, despite advances in technology, STILL seem to be stuck on your "grass grows" example. Just replace "grass grows" with "god did it"
Vire70 3 years ago
Indeed, it is presumptuous to pretend that critical, unexplained properties and forces that permeate and dictate all the natural world are the result of the hand of God - not terribly different from those that claim there is no way they could be God's handiwork - when they have not a clue as to their reality.
I find myself repeatedly reminding folks that to demonstrate predictability in a widespread process, behavior or property is light years away from understanding.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
It is different because when it comes to things such as this video which postulate how it could have happened, there is actual logical reasoning behind it. It's possible... far more so then some magical figure that's never been proven being thrown onto the issue just so pitiful minds can have an automatic fix for this problem.
Vire70 3 years ago
Pretenses of understanding anything by dismissing critical matters as meaningless happenstance is contrary to sound science - but it happens all the time - when possibilities are ridiculed as magic tricks by some invisible man in the clouds. In our life's journies, clarity at that cost isn't conducive to a realistic search for truth. Interesting that modern science cannot explain myriad, critical forces and properties woven into the natural world - yet amazingly, claim to know what they are not.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Once can look at simple probability and easily assume that a moral, intelligent perfect benevolent omni-god that created the universe, life, set out rules of morality and really frigging loves us, yet refuses to intercede for reasons unknown, is NOT VERY LIKELY. It's that simple. It's like saying What's in room 2? Oh, it must be the flying spaghetti monster, let him touch you with his noodly appendages! This argument is a joke.
Besides, Science doesn't claim to know anything about creation.
Vire70 3 years ago
It seems rather important that you disprove that which you cannot - and your analogies evolve into the utterly inane.
"Frigging" and "spaghetti monster" - compelling indeed.
Science, you acknowledge, knows nothing of creation - yet you proclaim, with a straight face I presume, it's non-existence.
Now that's what I call a leap of faith.
Believe what you will - as will I.
But keep your eye on the ball - the fundamentals that science desperately struggles to explain - but cannot.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
The fundamentals that science cannot explain aren't really relevant, because at least they are trying to make progress, religion just makes assumptions that haven't changed for essentially 2000 years. I never said Science proclaimed God is non-existent, I'm not in the habit of making assumptions like the religious. But I did give you an example of the probability...so small as to be laughable.
A leap of faith to not-believe in santa claus, indeed.
Vire70 3 years ago
Not relevant?
The countless, critical properties and behaviors that permeate microbiology, chemistry, cell formation, structure and replication that are crucial to all life everywhere, unexplained - yet the driving engine, irrelevant? As in taken for granted? Kind of like gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces that dictate all matters of physics and cosmology - unexplained yet also irrelevant? Remember, I make no claims whatsoever. But you do - although you - nor anyone else, knows.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Blah, I was saying that just because they ARE unexplained is irrelevant to this discussion. Not that they are totally unexplained anyway, that's an exaggeration. And, what claims have I apparantly made? I don't remember making any claims. You keep putting words in my mouth.
Vire70 3 years ago
Irrelevant to this discussion? It is, in fact, the central crux of the discussion - and my focal point from the beginning - long before you chimed in. The record is clear. And you do, indeed, make repeated claims - to know what these critical properties are not, even though you can't explain them. Exaggeration? Hardly. Ask any physicist about the measuement dilemma. Ask any biochemist about the behavior of polynucleotides. Remember, gravity is but a theory.
I put words in your mouth? Absurd.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
I see you haven't quoted where I said that... too bad for you, until you do then you're just making shit up, because i didn't say it. It is irrelevant to the discussion because what science doesn't know isn't relevant to the existence of God... no one will deny science doesn't know everything. I'm not going to bother replying again after this, this is going no where.
Vire70 3 years ago
Yeah, I'm used to that. Garden variety 'experts' that fancy themselves as 'holders of esoteric truths and special insights' - getting in over their heads when the brass tacks make their appearance.
Claiming what it isn't - when you don't know what it is - brilliant.
You've tried to make this discussion about empirical proof of God - which it is not, and never was.
With a record so clear, I don't get how you can pepeatedly miss the point.
By the way, note a few of your quotes nearby.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Quote #1: "It's possible... far more so then some magical figure that's never been proven being thrown onto the issue just so pitiful minds can have an automatic fix for this problem."
Quote #2: "...simple probability and easily assume that a moral, intelligent perfect benevolent omni-god that created the universe, life, set out rules of morality and really frigging loves us, yet refuses to intercede for reasons unknown, is NOT VERY LIKELY"
Quote #3: "it must be the flying spaghetti monster"
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
None of those quotes claim that God doesn't exist. They just ridicule the absurd improbability of a deities existence. There is a difference. Which is exactly what i was saying... no where have i actually claimed gods non-existence, merely called upon the absurdity of believing he DOES exist. Perhaps you are right that I got sidetracked from the original issue, though.
Vire70 3 years ago
Fair enough - but ridicule speaks loudly.
Let me employ a prior quote:
Am I claiming that the unexplained forces, properties and behaviors that dictate everything in the natural world are by the hand of God? Of course not. Without genuinely understanding them, that would be absurd.
Nearly as absurd as to proclaim that these critical aspects of all existence, matter and life as we know it aren't possibly as a result of design - when proving that kind of negative is, in fact, impossible.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Well, to be fair, I never said they weren't possible. I just think it's ridiculous to actually think they are, given the alternatives...
Vire70 3 years ago
Given the realities - I think it would be equally ridiculous to dismiss the possibilites. Especially given the significance, the central role that these elusive forces play in all that is - in all places - for all time.
With the best minds of humans fully engulfed yet utterly clueless, dedicating their careers to these matters - I'd entertain any sensible postulation, except what they are not.
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
~~ Albert Einstein [1879-1955]
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
I put little faith in authority figures. If you want to believe in fairy tales for a substitute just because science can't figure out the real truth, i guess that is your right.
Vire70 3 years ago 3
Once again, continuing to completely miss the point does your credibility no good, whatsoever.
But likewise, that is your right.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
In summary, I make a conscious decision to not slam doors of possibility during my life's journey, especially regarding matters that I cannot explain - nor can a single other person on the planet. Unexplained realms - potentially all around us - that science is not able to weigh, count and measure is far from proof that they don't exist. I can thnk of no scientist to ever make that claim - and I certainly wouldn't as long as my credibility is of value.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Yes, we know - the building but not the bricks or the mortar. Yet the video implies that we, (actually he, the narrator in particular and science in general), understands much more - by taking for granted the properties, (bricks), and forces, (the mortar), as a given. Such is necessary in all exercizes of over-simplification.
I don't write scripts, especially about matters of such immense breadth, I would avoid heaping loads of blase' disdain for that which is virtually unknown and unexplained
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
I think that a new term should be introduced into the "Made Easy" video series to describe these foundational, critical, yet recurring phenomenon, (as pesky as they are), and the acronym shall be: JTWII, (just the way it is). Fairly synonymous to my bold proclaimation that my explaination of the function of an electric induction motor is all-encompassing, exhaustive and thorough, yet don't pester me about that properties of electricty thing. The star of the show, yet uncredited. It's JTWII.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
In "Origins of Life Made Easy", to wit "the DNA does the job on it's own". And "the nucleotides form quite happily on their own". Or, "left alone, the solution produced atonine". "And they combine to form polynucleotide chains". The video is littered with assumptions that are, (wait for it), taken for granted. That pesky, "just the way it is" thing. Implying that "it isn't magic, ignorant one, simply because it's mysterious", perfectly normal, just don't ask for details or genuine explaintions
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
And yet the immense realm at the quantum level destroys everything, turning it over on it's ear, in the pursuit of a Grand Unification Theory.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Our understanding of both gravity and electromagnetism, (among other forces), is through observation of it's effects, which is an immense leap from grasping the nature or even causes of these powerful and invisible forces that are necessary for all things to exist above the quantum realm.
As I have said, the matter quickly becomes philosophical, yet many want to simplify the fundamentals of creation all around us by implying through omission that it's all completely understood, when it is not.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Rod, indeed, the human condition and journey is fraught with unknowables. And the theist hardwiring of the brain is strongly suspected. I'm not a Christian and abhor what organized religion does to the broader concept of myriad possibilities. And I make a conscious choice not to dismiss those possibilities. Upon very close examination, and pondering over the finer details of nature/creation, it's difficult for me to take it for granted as "just the way things are". I can, but don't.
Peace bro.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Interesting that our learned narrator continues to sidestep the myriad hard, and fundamental realities of matter. The 'why'.
Matter possesses properties that are known but far from explained. Heavier-than-iron elements are created only in supernovas. Why?
Atoms behave the way they do, um, why?
Atoms combine in complex patterns to form various elements, Why?
Gravity, eltromagnetism and the nuclear forces exist and behave predictabley - but why?
Oh yeah - that's just the "way" it is.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean there's a purpose to it or that it's magic. One hypothesis is that the physical constants (speed of light, gravitational constant etc.) have one value in this universe and possibly other values in other universes, if at the Big Bang, according to 'multiverse quantum theory' (AFAIK), universes 'froze' in those states, all over the entire spectrum of possible states. I might be wrong though.
turkosicsaba 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The myserious yet critical properties of matter and forces, necessarily dismissed, even taken for granted as "just the way things are", permeates the entire discipline of scientific "explaination". Flippant descriptions such as "magic" is to sidestep, even to disdain the deeper, fundamental realities that hide in plain sight, everywhere. I personally choose to ponder the possibility that these 'magical' and key aspects of nature might be more than mere accidental or meaningless.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Your "why" is not a scientific question because it can imply a "purpose" to something. "Purpose" leads someone to (erroneously) think "Creator/s".
The questions should be "how". (i.e. How did supernovas create heavier than iron elements? How do atoms behave this way or that?)
Why assumes purpose.
Why would a scientist assume something has a "purpose"?
RodCornholio 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rod, I think "why" is, indeed, fundamental to the scientific quest for understanding and knowledge. "Why" needs not lead to a purpose at all - but it certainly could, philosophically speaking. Dismissing, (as a matter of necessity), an immense arena of properties and realities, (when these very properties and realities are critical aspects in everything, everywhere), as "just the way things are" is to take for granted what very well may be most profound, and simply falls short in my thinking.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
It's very human to wonder why. The human brain is hardwired to look for patterns and "meaning".
As a non-theist, I know it is up to me to give meaning and purpose according to my own desires or perspectives.
Looking for causation or the "how" is something more in the realm of science and less in philosophy.
As I tell all theists, if you have evidence of God, RUN to the Nobel Prize committee and submit it. If you win, you'll effectually convince millions. More than here on youtube.
RodCornholio 3 years ago 2
MichaelRMcCoy:"Oh yeah - that's just the "way" it is."
But that is what science does; it just determines the way things work. It's just observations that describe the way things are. Let faith tell you why you are here and the meaning of life. Let science tell you how the world works.
It will be fine until they contradict each other. Then we get issues like evolution vs intelligent design. In time science always wins these debates though. The sun simply dosn't orbit the earth.
ttrn1 3 years ago
ttrn1, I completely agree. Taking the finer, salient points of biology and the fundamental aspects of physics for granted or as an accident seems to work for many. But science taking these aspects for granted is far from revelaing how they work. And that's precisely why science hasn't trumped the possibility of design. Any jury deciding that is working with an incomplete body of evidence
It involves a philosophical commundrum and I choose to not set my mind in concrete with so many unknowables.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"Heavier-than-iron elements are created only in supernovas. Why?"
Because the temperatures and pressures are greater.
"Atoms combine in complex patterns to form various elements, Why?"
Because of the number of protons they possess. The number of protons determines the element. As for your other questions, you'll have to be more specific.
potholer54 3 years ago
potholer, science hits a brick wall, and fails to explain the properties of matter just as it fails to explain dark matter, dark energy and gravity for that matter, (let's avoid the nuclear forces and electromagnetism.) Accepted mindsets such as "that's the way things are" completely sidestep the hard realites, the miraculous behavior of matter at the elementary level, ostensibly all by accident.
Predicting an event or principle is far from grasping the how and why.
These remain unknown.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"These remain unknown."
No surprise there. 100 years ago you would have told me science fails to explain earthquakes. 200 years ago it failed to explain chemical reactions. 300 years ago it failed to explain lighting. 400 years ago, rainbows. If our ancestors had given up and said "that's the way things are" we'd do as you do and think these were all incomprehensible miracles. 100 years from now a lot of what you think of as 'miracles' will also be explained.
potholer54 3 years ago
potholder, our differing views amount to much more than semantics - surely philosophical. Faced with the concept that all things everywhere are a grand accident - that an incomprehensible complexity and array of matter, forces and biological processes all rose from a quark sized particle and are meaningless, random and happenstance is not something I'm willing to accept - without pondering alternate possibilities.
With the jury out, closing my mind like that would be impossible, and arrogant.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"Faced with the concept that all things everywhere are a grand accident"
I'd like you to show me one example of an "accident". Earthquakes? Tides? Planetary collisions? Exploding stars? Are these all accidents? They may have seemed that way to our ancestors, but once you understand the cause then they are no longer accidents but predictable events. Understanding them isn't arrogant, it's liberating, because it allows us to understand nature free of superstition and ignorance.
potholer54 3 years ago
I'm afraid that you have confused my use of the term "forces" as that of eathquakes, tidal actions and planetary movements et al. There is a fluidity to my prior posts with a clear focus on the esoteric, the unexplained - the fundamental forces and properties that remain unexplained, regardless of how predictable they are. With a series of ever deeper questions of such matters, each physicist, biologist or cosmologist must necessarily proclaim that "that's the way it is", or some such facsimile.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
potholder, unexplained "accidents" are to be found in abundance at the quantum level. If you could explain the uncertainty principle or the ultraviolet catastrophe, there are countless physicists that would beat a path to your door. A Nobel Prize awaits you for your explanation of the measurement connundrum, in addition to any salient grasp as to the 'why' or 'how' regarding the nuclear forces, gravity or electromagnetism.
Wait, I know, that's just the way things are and to be taken as gospel.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"If you could explain the uncertainty principle or the ultraviolet catastrophe there...."
150 years ago if I had been able to explain what powered the sun physicists would have beaten a path to my door. Now it's something every 7th-grader learns. You don't seem to understand that science always advances, and that mysteries we don't understand one year are explained the next year by research and quickly become routine exam questions for 14-year-olds.
potholer54 3 years ago
Hmm... I do believe that a 14 year old actually explaining gravity or electromagnetism would be miraculous, indeed, beyond what is taught as a given from a textbook regurgitating wordplay such as: "that's the way it is", with the fancy use of terms such as "fields", "warpings", and "space-time" would be... well... regurgitations - which is a not too clever disguise for "we don't know why".
When physics can genuinely explain entanglement, gravity or the nuclear forces, I'll pipe down. Not until.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"we don't know why"
To repeat, we don't know why a lot of things happen. Why stars have the same angular velocity around galaxies, for example. But that doesn't mean we won't find out next year or next decade. We didn't know why rainbows formed and why earthquakes happened, and now we do. The reason we know these things is because scientists weren't prepared to say "God just made it that way" or "that's the way it is." They wanted to find out why it was that way, and they did.
potholer54 3 years ago
"There is a fluidity to my prior posts with a clear focus on the esoteric, the unexplained - the fundamental forces and properties that remain unexplained"
I'd like to know if you count things like rainbows and earthquakes as "unexplained." 500 years ago both were unexplained. 200 years ago rainbows were explained but earthquakes were unexplained. Now both are explained. You seem to think that things that are "unexplained" remain so for ever, and that is not the case.
potholer54 3 years ago
I firmly believe that you are aware of my grasp of such things as the optics of rainbows and tectonic forces of earthquakes.
What I don't grasp, is how you are able to seemingly miss my point(s).
My grasp of these events of nature rely on the same perspective as yours, which requires a faith that the fundamental properties and elemental forces that drive such things is a given - of no consequence - an are just the way things are.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"requires a faith that the fundamental properties and elemental forces"
My understanding of why rainbows form doesn't require faith. It requires an understanding of the behaviour of light. 500 years ago no one knew it was due to refraction. 200 years ago refraction was understood, but no one knew why light behaved that way. 100 years ago they understood why light behaved that way, but not why it has these properties. Maybe next year we'll found out why, and then go on to answer more questions.
potholer54 3 years ago
Hmm... understanding of the nature of light?
(First, light requires energy to be expended, not refraction.)
Could you explain the fundamentals of photons, (both a particle and a wave), while avoiding the dreaded, all-encompassing "that's just the way it works" so called "principle"?
Your faith in the Almighty Godscience, (all one word), seems to overwhelm you more than my ponderance or contemplation of a deeper meaning to it all. As I said before, it's philosophical - indeed, quite moot.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"Could you explain the fundamentals of photons"
To what end? Are you studying for an exam and you want me to tutor you? You want to see if I know anything? You're interested, but can't be bothered to look it up for yourself? What purpose would it serve, exactly?
potholer54 3 years ago
I require no tutoring. We all can look things up. Being trite furthers your cause or crediblility little.
Stick with the facts.
You continue your attempt to talk down to me - and others. No dice. I don't buy it.
Regarding the photons aspect, let's delve into that a bit.
They are both waves - and particles.
You are a self-proclaimed expert on these matters - I pretend no such thing.
What you are seemingly sure of is a lot - what you must rely on is "that's the way is is".
A lot.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"I require no tutoring."
I didn't think you did. So I could spend half an hour explaining something that you already know. Pointless. I imagine what you want is to get to an aspect of photons that I can't explain, you'll ask how it works and I'll say: "I don't know." So let's skip to that stage now....
potholer54 3 years ago
...There are a lot of things we don't know. Contrary to what you seem to believe, scientists don't shrug and say "that's just the way it is," give up and abandon research. Science is about finding out why things happen. The same applies to what we don't know about photons. We know more than we did 50 years ago, and our grandchildren will know more than we do. That comes from investigation and discovery....
potholer54 3 years ago
...So of course we acknowledge that things are the way they are, but that doesn't explain why, and that is the whole point of scientific research. The constant cry I hear from fundamentalists -- and Eric Hovind said this recently about the anomoly of pelvic bones in a whale -- is that "God just made it that way." i.e. shut and accept it, that's just the way it is. This is the antithesis of science.
potholer54 3 years ago
Exactly. Explaining the fundamental, elementary forces of nature, the properties of matter, thermodynamics and light as predictable and consistent is a far cry from understanding. Taken for granted, the wide assortment of the profound characteristics and behaviors make perfect sense, and lends any explaination seeming, yet faux validation.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"Explaining the fundamental, elementary forces of nature, the properties of matter, thermodynamics and light as predictable and consistent is a far cry from understanding."
I don't disagree that there are a huge number of things we don't yet understand. Why does matter have the property is does? Why is maximum light speed a constant? How do the four forces of the universe relate to each other? You seem to think scientists just shrug off these questions and say "that's just the way it is."....
potholer54 3 years ago
But, pardon my bluntness, that's nonsense. There are hundreds of research projects investigating why things are the way they are. The only people who give up and say "that's just the way it is" are fundamentalists, whose catch-all explanation is that some mysterious being did it and that's that. Case in point, the late Pope John Paul II told Stephen Hawking it wasn't a good idea to investigate the cause of the Big Bang, because that was the preserve of something called 'god.'
potholer54 3 years ago
I don't at all think that science shrugs these questions off, at all. Quite the contrary, indeed, with the effort and expense of the LHC for instance.
What I find objectionable, are those that must take the immense array of properties and forces for granted in explaining other processes that rely on these very fundamentals - then claim to have explained it all to the novice. This very act is to take these elementary properties for granted, and is, in fact, a version of "that's the way it is".
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"then claim to have explained it all to the novice."
I'm not quite sure who you're referring to here. I've never heard a scientist of any repute say they've "explained it all." Can you cite an example?
Just because scientists use these constants to find out why things act the way they do does not mean they take these constants for granted. An immense amount of research is going into finding out why these constants and forces are what they are, as you know.
potholer54 3 years ago
Throughout the "Made Easy" video series there runs an unmistakeable tone of scientific piety, a pronounced disdain for the mysterious - because it simply sidesteps anything unexplained. Examples? In Video 2 of the Universe: "I want to explain... physical processes we know and understand". Understand? Pshaw, indeed. Gravity is the star player, yet unaddressed as such. And there's that pesky, "atoms began to form", and "fusion begins" and that's just the way it is. Another example? (continued)...
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
"...and that's just the way it is. "
What we know: The Earth orbits the sun, the sun is part of a galaxy, the galaxy is x million light years across, the galaxies are all flying apart, etc. What we don't know: What gravity is, how it works, why the universe is lighter than it appears, etc. etc. If you can squeeze all this into a 10-minute video, let me see the script.
potholer54 3 years ago
potholer, you're reaching quite far, grasping for acceptance or validation, seemingly even desperately. And you did not author this series of videos. You know it as do I.
I believe that you have good intentions, but your over-simplistic assessments of the most profound realities facing the human journey are just that. Simplistic. Banal. Far too definitive.
I agree with some assessments that you post, evolution for one and some others.
But with so many unknowns, you represent your cause poorly
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
Whats your point?
antonyneal 3 years ago
Are you asking if I will recount points put forth in numerous proir posts?
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
antonyneal, am I to assume, based on your silence, that you took the time to actually read the prior postings, grasp the content and the breadth of the latent concepts before mindlessly posting, yet again?
If so, I applaud you. The quest for genuine knowledge and perspective should trump ego, ideally, every time.
MichaelRMcCoy 3 years ago
The sign of a true intellectual, admitting incorrect information... and then correcting it. Don't see dirty Young Earth Creationists doing that, do you?
TheWindClaw 3 years ago 10
Very true. Thats the great thing about science, it's fact, there's no blind faith involved, so changing incorrect infomation isn't a problem, because we have nothing to hide.
malango255 3 years ago 6
Im a young Earth creationist and ive decided to make a correction. The Earth is in fact a week old! I saw god do it last week and it only took him an hour. The reason i know this is cause he made me first. Thing is God was gonna do the whole evolution route and wait billions of years but he couldnt be assed waiting all that time without humans. So he made it all at once and even gave us the memories we would of had if gone the way we think it has. Yip thats why it seems theres been an abstance
NicNasty1981 3 years ago
"Im a young Earth creationist"
I hope you're also a satirist
JEXSCOvideoUnit 3 years ago
ah... so we CAN pinpoint the location of the Big Bang. It is right here in my left shirt pocket. Since, of course, all of incipient space-time was collapsed inside the singularity, the point of origin is smeared throughout all of space-time! It's in my left shirt pocket, uh-oh, even down around my naughty bits.
mapmanic 3 years ago 2
yes..if that makes you happy so its in mine naugthy ones to ..
13248396 3 years ago 2
As for the videos of potholer54: if I need to know about the most important details of the basics of the natural sciences, I can refer to these videos and ponder in deep-zen agreeance to the very ihghly cultivated British accent i hear and can perfectly imitate. LOL 5 stars forever.
MaBu888 3 years ago
That music is good!!!!
Ashabarala 3 years ago
I have a deep desire to prowl through potholer's music collection. I'm beginning to think that there is a serious correlation, if not causality, between IQ and musical taste, which, now that I think about the prevalence of country music in the U.S., is beginning to terrify me.
47f0 3 years ago
I can't agree or disagre with that. I listen to early music before the 19th centuries, going into the medieval times. Religious or not, the music is very much at home for me. My IQ is either 120 or 130, whih is irrelevant, but perhaps not irrelevant in terms of music selection. Perhaps the selection of music has a correlation with IQ. I do think it has to do with condicioning whether self-imposed or not.I think condicioning is a determining factor in many realms, mental, corporeal ability.
MaBu888 3 years ago
Perhaps it goes like this, which in my right mind can't really be certain of: below 90 it's all country music, upwards, it's techo, even upwards is classical music, even upwards still, it's whatever the likes of potholer54 listes to LOL. Haha see you both!
MaBu888 3 years ago
Excellent videos. My thanks for posting them.
the2ndsaint 3 years ago
This underlines the difference between the scientific community and the creationist crowd - scientists have the ability, and even willingness, to admit making mistakes and then correcting them. Potholer, your vids are excellent: entertaining, informative, and clear.
Squagnut 3 years ago 7
this is exactly what science is all about right here. taking criticism constructivly and working with it.
spence111 3 years ago 2
potholer54 you rock your videos are very useful thank you so much for posting on them on youtube
Evenindeath6 3 years ago 3
Maybe you should also expand on the development of our understanding of our solar system.
Shortening it down to the point where both Copernicus and Galleleo are excluded seems hasty to me.
HanFyren 3 years ago
HanFreyn, I agree, but I'm afraid I'm limited to the 10 minutes YouTube gives me.
potholer54 3 years ago